Shankar S/o. Chitaman Surkar vs The Uppar Commissioner, Nagpur Division & Ors.

Heard finally with the consent of Ms. Lakhani, holding for Mr. Bhandarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sapkal, learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1, 8, 9 and 10/State.

By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 06.02.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur, in Rev. Case No.1/LND-30/2012-13.

The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s father, namely Mr. Chintaman Surkar, filed a Regular Civil Suit No.60 of 1994 for permanent injunction against (i) Mr. Ramdas Pundlik Surkar, (ii) Mr. Mahadeo Pundlik Surkar and (iii) Mr. Anil Pundlik Surkar. By the said suit, he sought permanent injunction to restrain the said persons i.e. defendants therein from entering and passing through the field of petitioner’s father bearing Survey No.587 situated in Mouza:Wadner, Tahsil Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha. The said suit was contested by both the parties and after considering the entire documents and evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 15.09.2001 and the defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.60 of 1994, were permanently restrained from entering into or passing through the field Survey No.587 of Mouza: Wadner.

It is further pointed out that after a lapse of eight years from the said judgment of the learned Trial Court, one of the original defendants, namely Mr. Ramdas Pundlik Surkar, has filed the proceedings under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, before learned Tahsildar, seeking a right of way through the field Survey No.587, owned by the petitioner’s father. The said proceedings were decided and reached up to the learned Additional Commissioner, Nagpur. By the impugned order dated 06.02.2014, the learned Additional Commissioner, Nagpur, remanded the matter to the learned Tahsildar, for fresh consideration. The same is under challenge before this Court by way of the present petition.

This Court, considering the aforesaid facts, by Order dated 28.07.2026, requested the learned AGP to obtain the necessary instructions and clarify whether the proceedings in the civil suit and the proceedings filed under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, are related to the same field survey or different field and further, whether the cause of action in both the proceedings is the same or different.

In response to the order dated 28.07.2026 passed by this Court, the learned AGP, placed on record a communication of Sub-Divisional Officer, Hinganghat, dated 18.08.2026. The same is taken on record and marked as “X” for identification purpose only. Further, the learned AGP, on instructions, pointed out that the petitioner is correct in stating that the Regular Civil Suit No.60 of 1994, was decided between the parties on 15.09.2001 and thereby, clarified that respondent Nos.2 to 7 has no easementary right of way, as claimed in the present matter. It is also informed to the learned AGP that as the proceedings in the civil suit are finally concluded, the same shall be binding upon the Revenue Authorities as well.

In the light of above stated facts, it is clear that the proceedings initiated by the respondent Nos.2 to 7 are contrary to the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court in the year 2001. It is a well settled position of law that once the Civil Court has been decided between the parties, the Revenue Authorities cannot re-consider the same or re-open the proceedings by passing any contrary order in the matter.

In view of above, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 06.02.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur, in Rev. Case No.1/LND-30/2012-13 needs interference of this Court and same deserves to quashed and set-aside. Hence, I pass the following Order :-

The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.